Moti Lal Yadav And Anr. vs State Of U.P.And 5 Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 1013 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Moti Lal Yadav And Anr. vs State Of U.P.And 5 Ors. on 15 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80226
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61095 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Moti Lal Yadav And Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 5 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar,Ajay Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mrigraj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned A.C.S.C. for State.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, submits that petitioner-1 Moti Lal Yadav, has crossed the age of superannuation, therefore, this writ petition is rendered infructuous qua to said petitioner, however, claim of petitioner No.2 Ram Kishun still survives.

3. According to averments made in this writ petition, petitioner No.2 was appointed on the post of teacher on 01.07.1994. A scheme was enforced by the government to send the teachers in recognized schools for training and according to circular dated 18.02.2006, was issued that teachers who were appointed prior to 1996, shall be sent to basic training even through correspondence also, however, petitioner was not sent on training despite various representation and ultimately her representation was rejected by impugned order dated 11.07.2013.

4. The aforesaid order was passed on basis of an order dated 24.01.2013, passed in writ petition No.31968 of 2007, filed by petitioner and one another.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that claim of petitioner was wrongly rejected despite he completely falls within the G.O. dated 27.12.2004, which can be verified by documents and his claim was rejected on ground that since they were appointed subsequently Rules of 1975 and 1978 and since he was not B.T.C. qualified, therefore, his appointment was considered void ab initio and petitioner No.2 cannot be sent for training.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner also referred a document annexed along with supplementary affidavit that his name was sent by management on 13.02.1996 and, therefore, he was required to be sent on training and reason assigned that he was unqualified could not be legally sustained.

7. Per contra, learned A.C.S.C. for State has supported the impugned order and reiterated the grounds mentioned in impugned order a well as refers paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of counter affidavit, which are reproduced hereinafter :-

"5. ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????-05, 06 ??? 07 ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? 585/2002 (????????? ?????-10/2007) ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 17.12.2008 ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? 1975 ? 1978 ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? 18.03.1996 ?? ????? ?????? 01.07.1991 ??? 01.07.1994 ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 17.12.2008 ??? ???????? ?????? 18.03.1996 ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????-01 ??? 02 ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???

6. ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????-08 ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? 18.03.1996 ?? ????? ?? ??, ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? 1136/15-11-10 ?????? 09.08.2010 ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??????-585/2002 (????????? ?????-10/2007) ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? 17.12.2008 ??? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? 04.09.2009 ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? (????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????, ???? ?????) ????????, 1975 ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? (?????? ??? ?????, ????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ?????) ????????, 1978 ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? 09. 08.2010 ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????-03 ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???

7. ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????-09 ????? 15 ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? 31968/2007 ???? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? (???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ? ???? ?????) ???????? 1975 ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ????? ???????? 1978 ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? 1991 ?? 1994 ?? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??, ?? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ????? ????? ??????, ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? 11.07.2013 ?????????? ???"

8. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. Petitioner No.2 has claim that he was appointed in the year 1991 as untrained teacher, therefore, his appointment can be scrutinized in terms of relevant provisions of Rules of 1975 and 1978 and admittedly, petitioner being an untrained teacher, he could not be appointed in the year 1991 as Assistant Teacher.

10. In above background, the Court also takes note of relevant G.O. dated 27.12.2004, however, as referred above that in case, petitioner was not qualified he is not entitled to sent for training before 18.03.1996. In this regard, the Court also takes note of a judgment placed by respondent in State of U.P. & others Vs. Shailesh Kumar Dwivedi, Special Appeal No.10 of 2007 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-

"The submission, in our view, has substance. In view thereof, this appeal is disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners-respondents in the light of two conditions provided in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge, impugned in this appeal, as well as in the light of the conditions provided by the Division Bench in its Judgment in the case of Kall Charan Singh Arya (supra). Further, if the petitioners have been appointed after the enforcement of 1975 Rules of 1978 Rules in Junior Primary School or Junior High School, as the case may be, in violation of the provisions thereof and without possessing training qualification, such petitioners cannot be allowed to undergo training pursuant to the Government Order dated 6.9.1994. Thus, only those petitioners-respondents, who fulfil all the aforesaid requirement and directions, shall be allowed to complete their training and their result shall also be declared."

11. In above background, the Court also takes note of G.O. dated 18.03.1996, wherein it was directed that permission to untrained teachers for B.T.C. training would be given only when such teachers were found to be appointed either under any provision or circular or after the approval of concerned B.S.A., however, in present case, appointment of petitioner was never approved by concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari though documents were not sent.

12. In aforesaid circumstances, since above referred position of law in Shailesh Kumar Dwivedi(supra) is against the petitioner, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.5.2025

P. Pandey